4. Consideration of the request of the representative of Syria to include an additional item in the agenda

The PRESIDENT (translated from French): We have to continue the discussion of the question of the admission to the State of Israel, which was opened this morning [385th meeting]. It has been agreed, however, that we would first decide, at the beginning of this meeting, whether to consider, in addition to that question, the point raised by the representative of Syria following a communication from the representative of Egypt[S/1126].

Mr. EL-KHOURI (Syria): I requested this morning that the question of the violation of the truce at Faluja be inserted in this afternoon’s agenda. I see no agenda before me, and therefore I do not know whether or not that question has been included.

Mr. JESSUP (United States of America): In regard to question of including this item in the agenda, I believe the representative of Syria said this morning that he understood some communication had been received by the Secretariat from the representatives of Acting Mediator. It has been the quite uniform practice of the Security Council, I think, in a all matters in connexion with which we have representatives in the field, not to begin an examination of an actual situation described by one of the parties until we have received a report from our representatives in the field. If such a report is available, I would have no objection to adding this matter to our agenda as a second item, when we have finished the consideration of the present one. If, however, such a report has not yet been received, I think it would be more in accord with our practice not to place the matter upon our agenda or to begin discussion of it until the report has arrived.

Mr. EL-KHOURI (Syria): It is my understanding that the President asked the Security Council this morning whether there was any objection to my proposal that this item be inserted in this afternoon’s agenda that no representative objected, and that accordingly the President said that it was decided to include the item. That is how I understood what happened this morning. What has taken place in the interval between the two meetings to account for the fact that one delegation is now intervening in order to cancel this morning’s decision?

The PRESIDENT (translated from French): I am afraid that there has been some misunderstanding. I asked the Security Council this morning whether the point raised by the representative of Syria should be discussed at the end of the morning meeting; the Council has taken no decision with respect to the action to be taken on that question; the only point raised was when that question would be considered.

Mr. PARODI (translated from French): In order to cut short the procedural discussion and to enable us to find the most appropriate procedure for the present situation, I should like to point out that, while I agree in principle with the representative of the United States, I wonder – considering the possible difficulties of calling a meeting of the Security Council within the next few days – whether it might not be more expedient to include the question in our agenda and give immediate instructions to the Committee if Security Council. The Committee is fully entitled to ask the Acting Mediator to follow up the question and to receive information which the Acting Mediator may provide or which the Committee itself may eventually ask for; it is thus in a position to handle the questioning behalf of the Security Council. In this way it would perhaps be possible to avoid calling a meeting of the Security Council during the coming week, which would be desirable for various reasons.

Mr. URDANETA ARBELAEZ (Columbia) (translated from Spanish): As Chairman of the Committee appointed by the Security Council [S/1070], I have to inform the Council that no information with regard to the Faluja incident has reached the committee. The Committee has been in frequent contact with the Acting Mediator and also with the General Riley, the Chief of Staff in Palestine; yet up to the present moment, as I say, it has not been informed of any incident.

This morning Mr. Shertok told us that, for their part, they have no knowledge of any incident at Faluja either, and that the news received up to the day before yesterday was that the negotiation for the evacuation of Faluja were proceeding normally. Naturally we shall try to communicate with General Riley and Acting Mediator as soon as possible in order to learn whether there is any other news, although I should be any surprised if any such news would not have been forwarded by those officials automatically.

The PRESIDENT (translated from French): I am informed by the Secretariat that the communication from the representative of Egypt has been transmitted today to the Acting Mediator. The Assistant Secretary-General will now read out a telegram which he has received on the subject.

Mr. PELT (Assistant Secretary-General in charge of the Department of Conference and General Services) (translated from French): The Secretary-General has received no cable or news from the Acting Mediator; he has, however, received a telegram from Mr. Pablo de Azcarte, the Acting Mediator’s representative in Cairo. I shall read the telegram to you:

“The liaison officer of the Egyptian Government has informed me today that at 8.20 a.m., local time, Jewish forces launched violent attacks on all fronts in the Faluja region. All kinds of arms were employed during the attack. He stressed the fact that the Jewish attacks had taken place at the time when the Egyptian Government was carrying out the Security Council resolution on the re-establishment of peace in Palestine.

“(Signed) Pablo de Azcarate”

Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russia): In principle the delegation of the USSR has no objections to including the question proposed by the representative of Syria in the Agenda. However, there cannot be any by-passing of the procedure governing the inclusion of new questions in the agenda. Under the rules of procedure, twenty-four hours’ notice is required for the inclusion of a new question in the agenda. Inclusion without notice, as in the present case, puts members of the Security Council in a rather difficult position, as time is needed to become acquainted with available information on this question.

As regards information, we have only a dispatch from the Government of Egypt and one from Mr. De Azcarate, based also on information received from the Government of Egypt. Consequently, information has been received from one side only. We have no information whatever from the Acting Mediator, or from the Acting Mediator’s Chief of Staff, General Riley, who are on the spot. Moreover, we have an official letter from Mr. Bunche, dated 10 December, addressed to Mr. Urdaneta Arbelaez, Chairman of the Committee of the Security Council on Palestine, stating that the reply from the Government of Israel is entirely satisfactory so far as the question of the Egyptian garrison in Faluja is concerned, and that the Government of Israel has agreed to the removal of Egyptian troops from Faluja. Thus there is direct contradiction between the information reaching the Security Council from the Government of Egypt today and the information we have received the Acting Mediator. In these circumstances it would be premature to discuss the question now.

As regards the proposal of the representative of France advocating the reference of this question to the Committee set up by the Security Council resolution of 4 November[S/1070], the USSR delegation sees no reason for such a step. The point is that the committee was set up as a consultative body to advise the Acting Mediator on questions connected with the implementation of the Security Council’s resolution of 4 November. Now, as the Acting Mediator is not consulting the committee, there is no reason to give the Committee new instructions. Moreover, the question raised by the representative of Syria today is outside the Committee’s competence. If the information given to us now by the representative of Syria corresponds to the facts, it is for the Security Council and not for a consultative body to deal with the matter, and questions connected with the violation of peace and security are within the competence of the Security Council and beyond that of an advisory board.

The delegation of the Soviet Union therefore sees no reason to refer the matter to the Committee of the Security Council; it believes that, in the light of the above considerations, its inclusion inn the agenda of today’s meeting would be premature.

The PRESIDENT (translated from French): I must now ask the Council to come to a decision. I shall now put to the vote the proposal of the representative of Syria to include the question he has raised in the agenda of the present session.

A vote was taken by show of hands.

The result of the vote was 2 in favour and 9 abstentions. The Syria proposal was not adopted, having failed to obtain the affirmative votes of seven members.

5. Continuation of the discussion on the application of Israel for admission to membership in the United Nations

Mr. RIDDELL (Canada): The Canadian delegation realizes that the United Nations has placed certain obligations and responsibilities on the Provisional Government of Israel, and it is not unreasonable that this Government should request the privileges and advantages of membership in the United Nations.

We should like to give immediate consideration to this question, about in the circumstances surrounding the termination of the session of the General Assembly in Paris, we have found it more difficult than we expected to give this application the careful consideration which we find to be necessary. I shall give one example of the kind of problem that has arisen for us.

In the course of the discussions which have taken place here and in the Committee on the Admission of New Members concerning the application of Israel for membership in the United Nations, the boundaries of the area under the control of the Israeli authorities were mentioned on a number of occasions. The Canadian delegation does not think it necessary to delay action on the Israeli application until boundaries have finally been established, and I think the Canadian representative made this point quite clear in a statement in the First Committee. 5/

The question of boundaries, however, has been raised in a manner which we think requires reflection. If I understand correctly the remarks which were made on this aspect of the question by the representative of the USSR and the Ukrainian SSR, they regard the General Assembly’s resolution of 29 November 1947 as definitive and binding in every regard, including boundaries. In his statement before the Security Council on Wednesday last [384th meeting], the representative of the Soviet Union said:

“In our opinion, the territory of the State of Israel has been determined and delimited by an international instrument, that is, the General Assembly resolution of 29 November 1947, and which remains in force. Not only does that resolution delimit the territory and boundaries of the State of Israel, but the resolution has a map appended to it which can be consulted by any member of the Security Council or by anybody else. Thus, the question is indubitable. 6/

I am not sure what the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics intends in regard to boundaries. In his statement last Wednesday, to which I have already made reference, he used the word “enforcement” in relation to these boundaries. He may, therefore, believe that the Security Council should take action to make sure that the Israeli authorities withdraw from all areas which were not assigned to them by the General Assembly resolution of 29 November 1947. He may also believe that, without reference to the realities of the situation in Palestine, the Security Council should adopt measures – by force if necessary – to bring an Arab State into existence, to take over the territories not assigned to the Jewish State under the 29 November resolution. It would be logical to assume also that he considers that the Security Council should take the necessary steps to enforce economic union and all the other details of the resolution of 29 November 1947.

It seems to us it would be extremely difficult to carry out the programme which the statement of the representative of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics just quoted implies. I am not sure either that the Provisional Government of the United Nations on these terms. Neither am I sure that the process of settlement in Palestine would be assisted by accepting the implications of this statement.

The position of the Canadian delegation is somewhat different. We regard the resolution of the General Assembly as having the force of a recommendation, and we hope will emerge soon in Palestine, need conform precisely to any resolution of the General Assembly. On the contrary, we feel that the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine recently established by the General Assembly should be free, within the general principles laid down by the resolution of the General Assembly, to seek a settlement in Palestine on any basis on which agreement amongst the parties can be reached. This aspect of the question is, as I have already indicated, on to which the Canadian delegation would like to give attention in detail. We do not wish to defer indefinitely the application of Israel. We should be grateful, however, for an opportunity to give the question more careful consideration. I hope, therefore, that the Security Council will not insist on taking a vote now on the Israeli application. I have been much impressed by the other reasons which the representative of France has given for a further brief delay in the consideration of this question, and, therefore, I give my full support to the proposal which he has placed before the Security Council.

Mr. URDANETA ARBELAEZ (Colombia) (translated from Spanish): The Colombian delegation wishes to have the position of its Government on the problem under discussion – namely, the admission of the State of Israel into the United Nations – clearly established, in such a way that it cannot possibly give rise to any misunderstanding whatsoever; and it further desires to set out the reasons for its vote in favour of the admission of the State of Israel without delay.

Throughout the whole development of this problem and during all stages of its discussion, the Colombian delegation has taken care that its actions should be marked by the strictest impartiality; but an impartiality which does not mean indifference, because, clearly, the problem cannot be a matter of indifference to the Colombian Government, and the conflict between two peoples for whom it has special reasons of affection cannot but cause it deep concern.

Colombia has ties of affection and blood with the Arab peoples. Arab subjects established in our territory have attributed effectively to the progress of our agriculture and to the development of our industries, and persons of Arab origin have been included in our Government and have held and hold the highest posts in it, enjoying respect and being treated, with the greatest deference, as Colombians. With regard to the Jewish people, we may bring forward very similar reasons, because many prominent persons of that race live in our country and have also contributed to the progress and well-being of the nation. Moreover, our people and our Government could not fail to regard with lively sympathy that hard-working and intelligent people which has been the victim of the bloodiest and most implacable persecution in violation of the laws of humanity and of true human rights.

Such impartial affection has guided Colombia’s attitude during the consideration of the Palestine problem. In 1947, when the discussion took place on the resolution which was approved on 29 November, the Colombian delegation thought it best to urge that the parties to the dispute be guided towards a friendly agreement and brought into mutual contact and that an attempt be made to get them both to agree to the solution proposed; for that reason the Colombian delegation abstained from voting on that occasion. But the General Assembly in it wisdom decided to act otherwise and by a considerable majority approved on 29 November 1957, the resolution on the partition of Palestine and the establishment of Arab and Jewish States. Following the adoption of that resolution, events of the greatest importance took place which the Security Council of the United Nations could not fail to take into account. Thus, for example, there arose there a State endowed with all the legal conditions required and with a defined territory-–for I do not agreed with the opinion expressed here that there are no defined frontiers to the State of Israel, as in my opinion such frontiers do exist and are defined by a recommendation of the General Assembly. Surely it cannot be considered that a State which has arisen under such conditions came into being by some illegal means or that it does not have frontiers. It is possible that, if the frontiers defined in the Assembly’s resolution are not those adapted to the inhabitants of that territory and of the neighbouring countries, they may have to be modified, but any such modification must be carried out with the agreement of the parties to the dispute.

The situation existing today is, therefore, different from that which existed on 29 November 1947. We have before us a resolution of the Assembly which Colombia respects, in accordance with its traditional policy; and we find before us, too, irrefutable and undeniable facts which have occurred as a result and consequence of that decision, facts which it would not be intelligent or practical to overlook. In our opinion we have before us a legally constituted State which at the present time is requesting admission into the United Nations. In such circumstances, Colombia bases its position on what has already been its principle on this subject: that the concept of universality of the United Nations should be favored and that admission could only be denied to a legally constituted State in exceptional circumstances.

Here we have a request for admission from a State whose existence we recognize. Moreover, we believe that in this case there are practical reasons which make it desirable that the State of Israel should be admitted into the United Nations as soon as possible. It would appear that the existence of the State of Israel is a fact recognized by all except the parties to the dispute; nevertheless, as we have heard this morning and as I have heard several times, one of the arguments on which the Arab States base their position is that the State of Israel does no exist. I consider that this is the point under discussion today and one which tends to inflame the struggle and make more difficult the work of settling this conflict. Until the question of the existence of the State of Israel is cleared up, the struggle will be fiercer every day and mediation will be more difficult. Therefore, anything that may help in the elimination of this factor will be a real contribution towards the restoration of peace. I firmly believe that once the question of the existence of the State of Israel is removed and Israel is accepted as a legal entity by the Arab countries, a solution will be enormously facilitated and we shall open the way to a friendly settlement between both peoples. Every step that the United Nations takes in this direction through the General Assembly or the Security Council or any other of its bodies will be a step nearer to peace, and therefore I believe that such a step should be taken as soon as possible and not deferred.

The Colombian delegation, therefore, will accept the admission of the State of Israel into the United Nations and will not vote for any proposal to postpone that resolution. Our decision is also influenced by another reason: the resolution which the Security Council takes at this moment will simply imply a recommendation to the General Assembly. If, in the interval between the passing of the Council’s resolution and the adoption of a resolution by the Assembly, the State of Israel should show that it does not accept the recommendations of the Security Council or of the United Nations to bring about peace, to respect the truce and to convert that truce into an armistice which will lead to ultimate peace, then the Assembly could pronounce itself against the admission of Israel to the United Nations and then, the members of the Security Council themselves might possibly vote against its admission. I certainly hope that that will not happen and that by that time, Israel will have had an opportunity of showing that it is peace-loving, that it respects the recommendations of the United Nations and is cordially seeking good relations with its neighbors.

Mr. MALICK (Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): The delegation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics sees no reason to postpone the consideration of the question of Israel’s admission to membership in the United Nations. The delegation of the Soviet Union has stated its opinion on the matter at sufficient length at previous meetings of the Security Council devoted to the consideration of this matter [383rd and 384th meetings]; there is therefore no need for us to repeat those opinions today.

The USSR delegation thinks it necessary to make a few remarks on the substance of the United Kingdom delegation’s resolution. The purpose of that resolution is quite clear; it consists in preventing the admission of the State of Israel to membership in the United Nations. However, that purpose is disguised by all kinds of other references. The United Kingdom representative cannot make up his mind to state openly that he does not wish to admit the State of Israel, and is trying to find various artificial arguments in support of his desire. A resolution touching upon the substance of the question is presented in the form of a procedural resolution. As a pretext for postponing the consideration of the application of the State of Israel, the resolution refers to the creation of the Conciliation Commission of the General Assembly. Such a line of argument is obviously far-fetched; the Conciliation Commission has nothing to do with the question of admission of the State of Israel to United Nations membership. As has already been stated at previous meetings of the Security Council, that Commission was created not in order to abolish the State of Israel or to complicate its position, but to give assistance to the State of Israel and its neighbors in the peaceful settlement of their reciprocal relations, the normalization of those relations, and the establishment of normal conditions for the development of the State of Israel and for the creation of the Arab State in Palestine provided for by the General Assembly resolution of 29 November 1947.

That is the task of the Conciliation Commission; its work is in no way connected with the question of the admission of the State of Israel to membership in the United Nations.

Sir Alexander Cadogan mentioned in his speech today that the Soviet Union strictly adheres to the General Assembly resolution of 29 November 1947. He is not mistaken on that point; but he forgot to mention that the overwhelming majority of Members of the United Nations also adhere to that resolution, and has rejected the United Kingdom delegation’s attempt at the General Assembly to replace that resolution by the so-called “Mediator’s plan” which, as we all know, was dictated from London.

Thus, the General Assembly has, in fact, confirmed its resolution of 29 November 1947 and rejected the Mediator’s proposal to revoke it and to deprive the State of Israel of two-thirds of its territory, namely, the Negev region.

In passing, I wish to reply to the representative of Canada. It is true that the USSR delegation in the Security Council has always maintained, still maintains and will continue to maintain that the basis for the creation and the existence of the State of Israel and of an Arab State in Palestine is the General Assembly resolution of 29 November 1947. That resolution is an international legal document entitling the State of Israel and the Arab State in Palestine to their creation and existence, and nobody-–except, of course, the General Assembly-–has a right to revoke it.

But, as it will be recalled, the General Assembly has confirmed that resolution by rejecting the Mediator’s plan. The representative of Canada has referred to the possibility of a modification of the frontiers of the State of Israel as established by the General Assembly resolution of 29 November. Such a modification is, of course, possible, but that is the affair of the State of Israel and not of those who are trying by force to deprive it of territory which is legally its own, or to change the frontiers of that territory against the wishes of the State of Israel. That is the substance of the question, and it is way beyond any doubt that all attempts to change that territory or its frontiers by force will fail, as they have failed until now.

The United Kingdom representative’s attempts to dispute the statement of the delegation of the Soviet Union regarding the State of Israel’s right to move its troops within the limits of its own territory are invalid. Sir Alexander Cadogan is now trying to bring in the question of Faluja, but that is a curious line to take. At the Security Council’s meeting of 15 December [384th meeting], Sir Alexander drew attention to the movement of Jewish troops in the Negev region from the Dead Sea to the Bay of Akaba; no reference to Faluja was made on that occasion. At that time, the USSR delegation pointed out that every State was entitled to move its troops on its own territory in any direction, without anyone having a right to interfere.

Realizing that his attempt to contest that right were invalid, Sir Alexander is now advancing a new argument, namely the question of Faluja. But that question has no relation to the State of Israel’s right to move its troops on its own territory, the more so as we have official information from the Acting Mediator to the effect that the question of Faluja is nearing a satisfactory conclusion.

Sir Alexander Cadogan’s attempts to cast doubt on the peace-loving character of the State of Israel and, at the same time, to pass off Transjordan, with it notorious King Abdullah, as a model peace-loving State, speaks for itself and needs no comment.

His attempt to draw a parallel between the question of the admission of Israel and that of Ceylon is completely lacking in foundation. The two questions have nothing in common. The delegation of the Soviet Union has made a detailed statement of its position on the question of Ceylon [384th meeting] and has made a highly justified and reasonable appeal to the United Kingdom delegation, headed by Sir Alexander, to be guided by the resolution 197 (III) of the General Assembly on the reconsideration of all the twelve existing applications for admission to membership in the United Nations.

The USSR delegation has counseled the United Kingdom delegation to abandon the policy of favoritism in regard to certain States, to make no exception in the case of Ceylon and to examine Ceylon’s request merely as one of the twelve outstanding applications, in accordance with the general recommendation of the General Assembly. In addition, the delegation of the Soviet Union has proposed that the permanent members of the Security Council should previously consult one another on that question.

The reasonable, justified and well-founded proposals of the USSR delegation were not taken into account either by the delegation of the United Kingdom or by the other delegation engaged in a policy of favoritism towards some of the States applying for membership, and of discrimination towards other States, accompanied by attempts to discredit the latter.

By assuming such an uncompromising position, the United Kingdom delegation was clearly determined to provoke a negative vote from the delegation of the Soviet Union on the question of the admission of Ceylon. It is not the first time that the United Kingdom delegation has resorted to maneuvers of this kind; but it is not by such tricks that it will succeed in forcing the USSR delegation to abandon its consistent position of principle on the question of the admission of new Members in the United Nations. The delegation of the Soviet Union with in no circumstances sanction the policy of favoritism towards some States and of discrimination towards others which is being pursued by the United Kingdom delegation.

The question of the admission of Israel is, then, an absolutely separate one and has no relation to the question of the admission of Ceylon.

The attempts of some delegations in the Security Council to deny actual facts, to assert that the State of Israel does no exist, that it has no territory, no people, no frontiers and no Government, cannot be taken seriously; they can provoke nothing but laughter. Such attempts cannot even form the subject of discussion.

At the same time, it is impossible to disregard a strange theory advanced here by the representative of Syria and supported, if I am not mistaken, by the representative of France. The substance of that theory is that inasmuch as the territory and frontiers of the State of Israel and its right of existence are contested by some of its neighbor States, the States of Israel does no exist as a sovereign State and cannot be recognized as such. That theory is not only strange but also dangerous. It is reminiscent of the “theories” which, as we all know, were once upon a time preached by the fascist aggressors who claimed world mastery. According to those theories, it was enough for Hitlerite Germany to cast doubt on the existence of one of its neighbor States for that State to cease to exist, and for its territory to be seized and absorbed into the territory of Hitlerite Germany. Such claims were made by the fascist aggressors in respect of Austria, Czechoslovakia and a number of other European countries, including France. In that connection, all kinds of expansionist theories were advanced concerning the inferiority of the people of certain countries, and were used as justification for seizing those countries. History has given the lie to all such wild theories and their authors have paid a cruel price for their aggressive plans.

The USSR delegation is not inclined to believe that, in dealing with the question of the admission of the State of Israel, the Security Council will be guided by the “theory”-– if I may call it such-–advanced by the representative of France. That line of argument may be useful for claimants to world domination, but it is contrary to the principles of the United Nations Charter. It is entirely inconsistent with the principle of the peaceful co-existence of individual States and nations and of the development of good-neighborly relations among them. Such a theory is contrary to the principles of the United Nations also because it denies the right of every nation and every State to self-determination, freedom, independence and independent existence.

References have also been made here to the fact that no elections have so far been held in the State of Israel, and that no representative institutions have been set up. But before we give serious attention to this argument, let us first ask what interfered with the holding of election in Israel. Now, it is clear to all that it was foreign aggression which forced the State of Israel to concentrate its whole strength and attention on self-defense. If the State of Israel, like any other State in a similar position, were allowed a short period of peaceful existence, there can be no doubt that elections would be held and that representative democratic institutions would be set up.

The delegation of the Soviet Union likewise cannot agree with the resolution submitted by the representative of Syria concerning the reference of the Palestine question to the International Court of Justice. The attempts of the Syrian representative to submit resolutions of this kind, which have been made three time both in the Security Council and in the General Assembly, have met with failure. That fact is no accident for, from a legal stand point, the creation and existence of the State of Israel do not give rise to any doubt either in the Security Council or in the General Assembly. The whole matter is not questioned by many States which have established diplomatic relations with the State of Israel, given de jure recognition to that State and exchanged diplomatic representatives with it; I believe that the number of such States is now about twenty.

Moreover, the Syrian draft resolution contains a series of false assumptions. For instance, it maintains that the international status of Palestine subsequent to the termination of the Mandate on 15 May 1948 is not yet established. That does not correspond to the facts: the resolution of the General Assembly of 29 November 1947 clearly defines the international status of Palestine after the expiration of the Mandate. As is well, known that resolution granted the Jewish and Arab populations of Palestine the right to create two independent States. There is, therefor, no need to appeal to the International Court on this matter.

Similarly, the second question proposed in the Syrian resolution has no bearing on the matter we are discussing either, as the international status of Palestine is clearly defined. There is no reason to consult the International Court on other matters. The fact of the existence of the State of Israel is incontestable. It has a territory with frontiers clearly delineated by the General Assembly; it has a people and a Government capable of defending its freedom and independence. In the light of all those facts, the Security Council has full legal and political grounds for recommending the State of Israel for membership in the United Nations. Such action will be consistent with the provisions of international law. There is therefore no need to consult the international law. There is therefore no need to consult the International Court.

On the above grounds the delegation of the Soviet Union supports the application of the State of Israel, it will vote in favor of it, and sees no reason for postponing the question even for one month as the representative of France proposes, on incomprehensible and obviously far-fetched grounds. The facts which justify the State of Israel’s claim for membership at the present time will not have altered in a month. There can be no doubt about that. Hence there is no need to postpone a decision on that matter for a month, as the representative of France proposes.

In conclusion, the delegation of the USSR also thinks it necessary to draw the Security Council’s attention to the resolution of 29 November 1947, paragraph (f), which provides for the admission of membership of both the Jewish and Arab States to be created in Palestine under that resolution. The Jewish State has been created; it exists, and the Security Council has every reason to consider the question of its admission to membership favorably. When, under the same resolution, an Arab State has been created in Palestine, the Security Council will take appropriate action in accordance with the provisions of that resolution.

The following intervention occurred after the interpretation into English of the USSR representative’s speech, of which the above is the official translation:

The PRESIDENT (translated from French): In order to complete our agenda at a reasonable hour, we might, with the consent of the representative of France, dispense with the French translation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, provided the latter has no objection either.

Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): The delegation of the USSR insists that there be a French interpretation of the statement.

The interpretation into French was given at this point.

Mr. HSIA (China): At the 384th meeting of the Security Council last Wednesday, Mr. Tsiang stated very clearly the views of the Chinese delegation on the matter of the admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations. I wish, however, to take this opportunity to underscore and re-emphasize just one point. As a co-sponsor of General Assembly resolution 194 (III) of 11 December to establish a Conciliation Commission for Palestine, the Chinese delegation is convinced that it is inadvisable and inopportune for the Security Council to take any action that will necessarily make more difficult the task of conciliation between the two communities in Palestine. This being our primary concern, it is easy, therefore, to understand our preference for the United Kingdom draft resolution [S/1121] to the French draft [S/1127].

I would have preferred a postponement of two or three months. One month is far too short. It will certainly take the Conciliation Commission more than a month to get to bearings and to make any substantial headway in Palestine. Perhaps one month in not intended to be a final deadline. I presume that if the circumstances demand it, further postponement may be suggested a month hence. In the meantime, my delegation, however, will vote for the United Kingdom draft resolution. If it fails of acceptance, my delegation will be prepared to support the French resolution.

The PRESIDENT (translated from French): Speaking as representative of BELGIUM, I should like to make clear the position of my delegation.

In spite of the progress recently made in the search for a solution of the Palestine problem, the Belgian delegation feels that in view of the prevailing uncertainty regarding the methods of settlement, it is unable to take a stand, at this juncture, on the question whether the conditions laid down in Article 4 of the Charter have been fulfilled in the present case.

For that reason, the Belgian delegation considers it desirable that the examination of the application for admission submitted to us should be postponed.

I believe that we can now pass to the vote on the different draft resolutions submitted to us.

We have before us three draft resolutions dealing with preliminary questions in the matter of the Israeli application for admission.

There are two requests for adjournment submitted by the representatives of the United Kingdom [S/1121] and France [S/1127] respectively, and a request for an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, presented by the representative of Syria [S/1125].

If the Council agrees, we shall put the three proposals to the vote in the order which I have indicated.

We shall first take up the draft resolution of the United Kingdom. I presume that it will be unnecessary to read out its text, as we all have it before us.

The representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics will now speak on a point of order.

Mr. MALIK [Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): I should like to have an explanation of the following point: Are we going to consider this resolution as a procedural one or as a resolution of substance? The USSR delegation thinks that, inasmuch as the recital of the resolution refers to questions connected with the substance of the problem, it cannot be considered as a procedural resolution and must be treated as one of the substance.

The PRESIDENT (translated from French): I can only take note of the statement of the representative of the United Kingdom.

The result of the vote was 4 in favor and 7 abstentions. The draft resolution was not adopted, having failed to obtain the affirmative vote of seven members.

The PRESIDENT (translated from French): We shall now examine the draft resolution submitted by the French delegation [S/1127].

Sir Alexander CADOGAN {United Kingdom): May I just say a word in explanation of my vote. It is only to say that the French resolution, of course, does not go as far as mine. It does not go as far as I should think wise and necessary, but in my country we have a saying that half a loaf is better than no bread, I am not in favor of a hunger strike. Therefore, I shall vote for it.

Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): I wish to repeat the statement I made before voting on the resolution submitted by the representative of the United Kingdom. I do not consider the resolution submitted by the representative of France to be a procedural one either, as the preamble contains a reference to the situation in Palestine as a whole. Consequently, the question concerns substance and not procedure.

The PRESIDENT (translated from French): I shall put to the vote the draft resolution presented by the delegation of France.

The result of the vote was 6 in favor and 5 abstentions. The draft resolution was not adopted, having failed to obtain the affirmative votes of seven members.

Mr. EL-KHOURI (Syria): Before voting on my draft resolution, I should like to make a short statement so as to dissipate certain doubts which were raised by the representative of the USSR. Once of the arguments he used was to the effect that I had submitted the same resolution several times in the First Committee, in the General Assembly and in the Security Council, and as to why I should submit it again now.

That reminds me of the story of the husband who went to the judge and asked to be divorced from his wife. The judge asked him why he wanted a divorce, and what was the matter with his wife. The husband answered: “Every day she wants ten francs. I am a poor devil. I cannot afford to give her ten francs every day.” The judge asked if it was true that she asked for ten francs every day. She said it was true, but that she had asked every day for ten years and he had never given it to her.

I have submitted several such resolutions, but they have never been adopted. That does not mean that I should not submit such a resolution now. Furthermore, this resolution is not the same as the ones I have submitted before. Paragraph 1 brings up a new question which I have never put before the General Assembly or the Security Council. That question is whether or not the recommendations of the General Assembly and the General Assembly resolution of 29 November calling for a partition with economic union, which was rejected by the Arabs of Palestine, establish the right of the Jewish minority to proclaim a separate State on the termination of the Mandate. That is a legal question. The proclamation and the existence of the Jewish State depend on the resolution of 29 November. I want to ask the International Court of Justice if this resolution creates the right of proclaiming such a State. If the reply is in the negative, the whole question will be solved.

There is also something new in the third paragraph. It asks whether or not the Security Council would be acting in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations and with international law if, under present circumstances, it recommended the admission of the State of Israel to membership in the United Nations. This is a question which is before us now. I am not trying to get a resolution passed requesting an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice.

I hope that this argument will appeal to the members of the Security Council, especially those who are jurist and who know that my request is legal and adequate in present circumstances. There is time between no and when the General Assembly will meet again to receive an answer from the International Court of Justice.

I would appeal especially to the representative of the USSR who asks how we can refer a resolution already adopted by the General Assembly to the International Court of Justice. I am not asking that now. I am only asking if that resolution created a right for the Jews to proclaim a separate State. I do not deny that the General Assembly has the right to make recommendations, but I question the quality and weight of these recommendations. Do such recommendations create rights which did not exist before? That is my question, and I think that it is a substantial matter which should be considered by the jurists.

The PRESIDENT (translated from French): I shall put to the vote the draft resolution presented by the representative of Syria [S/1125].

The result of the vote was 5 in favor, 1 against, and 5 abstentions. The request was not accepted, having failed to obtain the affirmative votes of seven members.

Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics)(translated from Russian): I should like to ask the President of the Security Council to give members of the Council three days’ notice in the event of an extraordinary meeting being called during the next few days.

The PRESIDENT (translated from French): The Secretariat has taken note of the Council’s desire in the matter, which will be met to the fullest possible extent.

The meeting rose at 5.50 p.m.

Notes

1/ See Official Records of the third session of the General Assembly, 184th plenary meeting.

2/ See Official Records of the third session of the General Assembly, First Committee, 228th plenary meeting.3/ See document A/AC.14/SR.32.

4/ Original text in French.

5/ See Official Records of the third session of the General Assembly, First Committee, 206th plenary meeting.

6/ Quotation of the interpretation of the remarks made by the representative of the USSR given during the meeting and not of the official translation which appears in the Official Records of the Security Council, Third year, No. 129.